"Less patients died than normal in the study compared to this very sick group of patients and most were getting Brilacidin"
The first part of your statement may or may not be true - it was stated by Ehrlich, but I'd like to see the validation of the cohort against which he made this retrospective and dubious comparison.
The second part of your statement is dead wrong.
Roughly 60 patients (we don't know the exact randomisation, but it was meant to be 1 to 1) received brilacidin, and roughly 60 didn't.
Four patients on brilacidin died (it might actually be five, but the PR is deliberately opaque on that point), and four patients on placebo died.
So brilacidin is no better than placebo.
We also know the primary endpoint:
"Time to sustained recovery through Day 29 [ Time Frame: Day 1 through Day 29 ]
Day of recovery is defined as the first day on which the subject satisfies one of the following three categories from the ordinal scale with response sustained through Day 29:
Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (other than for per protocol dosing or assessments, as appropriate);
Not hospitalized, limitation on activities and/or requiring home oxygen;
Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities."
was not met so there's really not much that data dredging can do to make a silk purse out of this particular sow's ear.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
